Not that I disagree with the bulk of your sentiments here -- I said much the same to my wife at dinner about admiring the guy's marketing skills -- but you appear to be stating that "photographs" effectively cease to exist once chemicals and negatives are out of the loop. An idea I vehemently disagree with.
DSLRs, software and inkjet prints are all part of the new photograpy and thus produce photographs. On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:52 PM, P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote: > The quote from the London Gallery owner is pretty telling, not so much about > Lik, but certianly about the Art photography marked. Let's see, Rhine II, > wasn't exactly a photograph, it was a heavily Photoshopped inkjet, (Oh, I'm > sorry, perhaps I should have used the word Gilcee instead of inkjet), print. > Yet I'll bet that gallery owner didn't blink an eye when it sold for $1.3 > million. From what I've seen of Lik's work it doesn't require eye bleach, > (such as Thomas Kinkade's did). It just seems that he's found a way to > legally separate money from rich people with more money than brains without > needing a middle man. More power to him I say. > > > On 2/22/2015 4:39 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: >> >> So is Lik's work resellable for a lot of money? Apparently, not so much. >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html >> > > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
